#G20 Debate is about "collateral damage" - Not Police vs. Black Bloc

I've tried explaining this in previous posts but there are many people who still don't seem to understand. The politicians and police agencies involved in the G20 are trying desperately to frame this as a debate where you either support the police or you support the black bloc. This is true of politicians at the city, provincial and federal level.

The truth is that if it were just about the police vs. the black bloc, if police had simply arrested vandals and left it at that, there would be no protests of any size and there would be no calls for an inquiry.

Most of those who are angry and asking questions about police actions at the G20 do not support the black bloc, or anarchists generally. Like everyone else, almost all of the people now calling for public inquiries denounce in the strongest possible terms the actions of the bloc on Saturday, June 26. In fact one of the questions that we would like answered is: Why did the police stand down and allow the black bloc to rampage for so long. Because the bloc wore masks and because police did not apprehend them in the act it is going to be very difficult to prove who was involved in the vandalism.

The big questions though, for those calling for an inquiry do not involve the black bloc at all but rather what is known in modern military terminology as "collateral damage." Why were hundreds of innocent, peaceful people, many of them not even protesters assaulted and arrested? What went wrong at the detention facility that caused many people who had done nothing wrong to be held under conditions that would have, had this been a war, violated the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs? Why were they held in dangerously overcrowded cells and denied medical attention and appropriate food and water? Why were journalists (apparently) targeted? Were the mass arrests meant to justify the bloated security budget? These are just a few of the many questions we would like answered. As citizens and taxpayers we have a right to some honest answers.

The attempt to frame this as a debate between supporters of the police and supporters of the black bloc is simply a convenient way for those who do not wish to answer questions to hide from the public.

I certainly cannot speak for all of the people calling for an inquiry but my impression is, based on myself, the people I know who are involved and those I've talked to that the people demanding an inquiry generally do support the police, most of the time and do not support the black bloc or have any problem with the vandals being arrested and tried - however something (perhaps many things) went very, very wrong on G20 weekend in Toronto and we would like to know what went wrong, why and who is responsible.

Some answers have been offered to date, but the answers we've been given do not explain anything and, in many cases, directly contradict the publicly available evidence - so an impartial public inquiry seems the best way to proceed.

Asking questions of elected leaders and public servants and expecting honest answers didn't used to be a treasonous act in this country. Let us hope it still isn't.